Let's Talk About This Obamacare Thing Nicely

[Sallow]

Here it Goes...

This isn’t so Bad (mostly already in effect):
-Makes it easier to get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition
-No pre-existing conditions for kids under 19
-Kids can stay on insurance until age 26
-Encourages the FDA to approve more generic drugs
-Increases rebates on drugs people get through Medicare
-Encourages preventative care

This is not Good (just coming into effect):
-Individual Mandate: you must buy insurance or pay the price
-Expansion of Medicaid to 133% of poverty line
-Businesses over 50 employees MUST give full-timers insurance


Although I list a greater quantity of things in the “Isn’t so Bad” section, the three points in the “Not Good” section I think far outweigh any of the aforementioned merits.

I don’t like the idea of being forced to buy insurance, and the options they provide (based on what I’ve seen) cost at a minimum $250/month for a crappy plan or face a penalty (only $100 in yr 1, but skyrockets to $500 after that). Too, seems like a really f’ing good deal for the insurance companies (lol). How about Audi and our Gov’t draft a bill that forces every American to buy at least 1 car?

Although it can be argued that the idea of expanding Medicaid is a noble one, the fact is that we’re $17 trillion in debt. It’s not the time for this, and I’m also not a huge fan of creating more State-dependents who were at one point on the cusp of becoming self-sufficient.

I don’t like the idea that businesses w/over 50 employees will be forced to provide insurance to full-timers. A 50 person company isn’t all that huge, by comparison, and I think this is going to result in hours getting cut, people getting laid off, and (formerly profitable) companies being forced to close their doors. Is this worth shutting down profitable businesses? I don't think so.

Thoughts?

Let's try to hold off on the name-calling until at least the 3rd page of posts (if it gets there).

.

You know me Kev..I never start with the name calling.

And think about it..the $250, crappy plan, for someone who may be between jobs or poor is better than emergency room care, which is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE to the government.

In terms of government spending? This actually saves a bundle!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here it Goes...

This isn’t so Bad (mostly already in effect):
-Makes it easier to get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition
-No pre-existing conditions for kids under 19
-Kids can stay on insurance until age 26
-Encourages the FDA to approve more generic drugs
-Increases rebates on drugs people get through Medicare
-Encourages preventative care

This is not Good (just coming into effect):
-Individual Mandate: you must buy insurance or pay the price
-Expansion of Medicaid to 133% of poverty line
-Businesses over 50 employees MUST give full-timers insurance


Although I list a greater quantity of things in the “Isn’t so Bad” section, the three points in the “Not Good” section I think far outweigh any of the aforementioned merits.

I don’t like the idea of being forced to buy insurance, and the options they provide (based on what I’ve seen) cost at a minimum $250/month for a crappy plan or face a penalty (only $100 in yr 1, but skyrockets to $500 after that). Too, seems like a really f’ing good deal for the insurance companies (lol). How about Audi and our Gov’t draft a bill that forces every American to buy at least 1 car?

Although it can be argued that the idea of expanding Medicaid is a noble one, the fact is that we’re $17 trillion in debt. It’s not the time for this, and I’m also not a huge fan of creating more State-dependents who were at one point on the cusp of becoming self-sufficient.

I don’t like the idea that businesses w/over 50 employees will be forced to provide insurance to full-timers. A 50 person company isn’t all that huge, by comparison, and I think this is going to result in hours getting cut, people getting laid off, and (formerly profitable) companies being forced to close their doors. Is this worth shutting down profitable businesses? I don't think so.

Thoughts?

Let's try to hold off on the name-calling until at least the 3rd page of posts (if it gets there).

.

-Individual Mandate: you must buy insurance or pay the price

Actually not.

This sort of incorrect information is what has made understanding the law so difficult.

If one refuses to buy insurance he pays a fee, with the opportunity to opt into insurance should he need it in the future. For those who refuse to pay the fee their income tax refund will be garnished. For those with no income tax refund, or no income otherwise, nothing happens.

And for the states that have refused to expand their Medicaid programs, if one has no income or the income is so low that he can’t afford subsidized coverage, he won’t pay a fee because there’s no insurance available to him at all.

For example, in Florida 763,890 residents will be left without health insurance and absent healthcare:

Florida's Medicaid-Obamacare gap has 763,000 people - Orlando Sentinel

-Expansion of Medicaid to 133% of poverty line

As noted above, the only problem with Medicaid expansion is only 24 states have opted to do so.

 

[Stephanie]

NO MORE FREELOADERS. Anyway, O-Care is newly guaranteed and affordable- despite what you've ''heard'' lol...

no more freeloaders, what do you call the people who will getting "subsidized" with TAXPAYER money?

 

[Stephanie]

Getting freeloaders to pay something and get preventive care saves lots of money over today's mess. Many fewer bankruptcies and fewer people on welfare just to get Medicaid...

they didn't need to get on welfare to get Medicaid...lie number one

people are STILL going to be bankrupted, if they can't take care of finances what will they do, file bankruptcy...lie number two

and do you plan to wear your brown shirt and force people to get preventive care?

what a dishonest joke

 

[francoHFW]

Contributors, as opposed to leeches.

 

[Stephanie]

Contributors, as opposed to leeches.

oh really, you mean the taxpayers will be again contributing to the leeches, right?

 

[francoHFW]

Getting freeloaders to pay something and get preventive care saves lots of money over today's mess. Many fewer bankruptcies and fewer people on welfare just to get Medicaid...

they didn't need to get on welfare to get Medicaid...lie number one

people are STILL going to be bankrupted, if they can't take care of finances what will they do, file bankruptcy...lie number two

and do you plan to wear your brown shirt and force people to get preventive care?

what a dishonest joke

oh sthu, moron...
Clueless, to get medicaid now you have to earn less than 800/month in NY down to zero in a lot of red states- how the hell does one survive on that- THEY GO ON WELFARE, dipstick.

Under O-Care there are yearly caps so bankruptcy is not necessary. READ SOMETHING, hater dupe...

 

[Stephanie]

Getting freeloaders to pay something and get preventive care saves lots of money over today's mess. Many fewer bankruptcies and fewer people on welfare just to get Medicaid...

they didn't need to get on welfare to get Medicaid...lie number one

people are STILL going to be bankrupted, if they can't take care of finances what will they do, file bankruptcy...lie number two

and do you plan to wear your brown shirt and force people to get preventive care?

what a dishonest joke

oh sthu, moron...
Clueless, to get medicaid now you have to earn less than 800/month in NY down to zero in a lot of red states- how the hell does one survive on that- THEY GO ON WELFARE, dipstick.

Under O-Care there are yearly caps so bankruptcy is not necessary. READ SOMETHING, hater dupe...

well not our fault what New York does...go get a second job to pay for own health care..

what a novel idea, isn't it

 

[francoHFW]

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX lol.

 

[Nyvin]

they didn't need to get on welfare to get Medicaid...lie number one

people are STILL going to be bankrupted, if they can't take care of finances what will they do, file bankruptcy...lie number two

and do you plan to wear your brown shirt and force people to get preventive care?

what a dishonest joke

oh sthu, moron...
Clueless, to get medicaid now you have to earn less than 800/month in NY down to zero in a lot of red states- how the hell does one survive on that- THEY GO ON WELFARE, dipstick.

Under O-Care there are yearly caps so bankruptcy is not necessary. READ SOMETHING, hater dupe...

well not our fault what New York does...go get a second job to pay for own health care..

what a novel idea, isn't it

oh great, yet another "just go get a job" conservative.

 

[Stephanie]

People will be working two or three jobs now since because of OfailureNocare, companies are cutting full time jobs OUT
..they want free stuff but now can't make a living on one job

voting does have consequences...it's about to slap a lot Obama voters in the face and pocket books to buy their wonderful, Ofailinsurance...

 

[Stephanie]

oh sthu, moron...
Clueless, to get medicaid now you have to earn less than 800/month in NY down to zero in a lot of red states- how the hell does one survive on that- THEY GO ON WELFARE, dipstick.

Under O-Care there are yearly caps so bankruptcy is not necessary. READ SOMETHING, hater dupe...

well not our fault what New York does...go get a second job to pay for own health care..

what a novel idea, isn't it

oh great, yet another "just go get a job" conservative.

oh wow, is that horrible and scares you or what?
people did it all the time, what's your excuse today?

 

[Politico]

NO MORE FREELOADERS.

We now have millions of freeloaders receiving subsidies for their insurance. And millions more in the expanded Medicaid program.

And millions will still be trying to figure out where to get the money for the insurance they already can't can't afford.

 

[Toronado3800]

I feel the 26 year old provision should be named the "failure to launch" provision. That is too old.

The individual mandate is genious IMO. Because we have had a socialist system for the last fifty years and neither Reagan or Nixon or Kennedy or Bush or Clinton were going to have hospitals quit passing on the cost to me after caring for those who could not prove they could pay for their services en masse.

What bullshit...26 year olds are not kids...
They shoud be making their own way in life...

My language was too flowery perhaps.

I also feel 26 year olds should not be on their parent's insurance.

Just because I want to force folks into paying for the insurance I feel they have really had since the 1950's does not mean I agree with the whole thing.

 

[Toronado3800]

I feel the 26 year old provision should be named the "failure to launch" provision. That is too old.

The individual mandate is genious IMO. Because we have had a socialist system for the last fifty years and neither Reagan or Nixon or Kennedy or Bush or Clinton were going to have hospitals quit passing on the cost to me after caring for those who could not prove they could pay for their services en masse.

So who do you think will be the ones to pay for them now,only add the number by millions,kinda makes the I don't wanna pay thing kinda silly.

I think we will still be subsidizing medical treatment for the poor. Hopefully my representatives and yours can figure out a way to get every last dime from those who can pay anything.

Once again, if I got sick in 1985 and had no insurance I went to the hospital and they provided me with some treatment. The hispital would create some paperwork saying they were billing me and maybe I would pay $10 a month to starve off some credit score hits or maybe I would just let them nail my credit score while I lived in a rental residence.

Was the President in 1985 a socialist? Sort of I guess if you look at the way my unpaid medical bill was passed onto you through a tax deduction for the hospital and higher bills for everyone besides me. Really I think in 1985 few folks had thought the problem through far enough and just did not realize they had a socialist system of from each according to their means.

But yeah, we need to try this and have our Reps get the math right on who gets discounts and how much.

 

[Toronado3800]

If fifty young and healthy people did not get insurance, and one of them got sick, the economic cost of taking care of that person is less than the economic cost of all fifty shelling out bucks for insurance.

ObamaCare depends on this fact. It is forcing the voluntarily uninsured to pay insurance because the aggregate forced contributions are greater than the cost of any illnesses that demographic incurs.

Only a willfully obtuse person would call these people freeloaders. These people have been coerced into paying for the health insurance of others outside their demographic.

Fact.

The actual freeloaders are those who will be receiving subsidies and those who are in Medicaid. One third of the involuntarily uninsured dropped out of high school and expect us to carry them on our backs as their reward.

They ARE freeloaders.

Every 20 something knew they could go to the hospital and get treated if they were suddenly shot or had kidney failure spring up, broke a leg or whatever. If they had to fear lying in the street bleeding to death because the ambulance drive would ask for their credit card before giving treatment then it woukd have been a non socialist system and they would have been taking their capitalistic chance

 

[francoHFW]

If they are paying somethingfair for insurance they're not freeloaders, and they will cost the country less because they're getting preventive care. HATERS LOL...

 

[Toronado3800]

If they are paying somethingfair for insurance they're not freeloaders, and they will cost the country less because they're getting preventive care. HATERS LOL...

So true. And the math or any 26 year old limits might all need tweaked but the idea is sound.

Lots of battleships floating around this page. Warspite had a heck of a run. Even its bi plane was a NAZI killer at Narvik. Think the ol' Swordfish scored a sub.

 

[WelfareQueen]

It's all been debated to death in this forum. Here is what we know which Obama supporters will not admit or acknowledge.

1. The majority of Americans do not like or want Obamacare. They never have. It was shoved down the American People's throat.

2. The website sucks and is barely functional. Reports indicate it functions so poorly because Obama did not want people to have access to an immediate price quote for fear of political fallout and sticker shock. Therefore, you have to go through multiple screens and input a great deal of personal information before you can get any indication what it will actually cost.

3. Most reports indicate it will benefit the very old, the very sick, and the very poor. Roughly 10% of the population. The remaining 90% of Americans will have to pick up the cost for those 10%. As a result, the majority of Americans premiums will increase a lot.

4. The points made to sell the plan (you can keep you doctor, it won't raise the deficit "one thin dime," you can keep your existing plan, it will insure all Americans...has all turned out to be lies or mostly lies. When the majority of Americans find out what they new premiums will be over the next few months things should be getting very interesting.

 

[JoeB131]

Here it Goes...

This isn’t so Bad (mostly already in effect):
-Makes it easier to get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition
-No pre-existing conditions for kids under 19
-Kids can stay on insurance until age 26
-Encourages the FDA to approve more generic drugs
-Increases rebates on drugs people get through Medicare
-Encourages preventative care

This is not Good (just coming into effect):
-Individual Mandate: you must buy insurance or pay the price
-Expansion of Medicaid to 133% of poverty line
-Businesses over 50 employees MUST give full-timers insurance


Although I list a greater quantity of things in the “Isn’t so Bad” section, the three points in the “Not Good” section I think far outweigh any of the aforementioned merits.

I disagree. The individual mandate is necessary if you eliminate the ban on pre-existing conditions because otherwise, people won't buy insurance until they get sick. It's like allowing you to buy car insurance AFTER you've had the accident.

Your other two points are that it's unfair that we've expanded other program, but it was the right that INSISTED that we not have a public option or expand Medicare for all, either of which would have solved the problem nicely.

Although it can be argued that the idea of expanding Medicaid is a noble one, the fact is that we’re $17 trillion in debt. It’s not the time for this, and I’m also not a huge fan of creating more State-dependents who were at one point on the cusp of becoming self-sufficient.

But here's the problem with that. No one is such a fan of self-reliance that they are going to die or let their children die on a principle. They will show up at the emergency room at ten times the clinical costs and those costs will be passed on to the rest of us.

The real argument is, is health care a consumer good, the quality of which is contingent on your personal wealth, or is it a public service like police or fire fighting? I'm going with the latter on that one.

I don’t like the idea that businesses w/over 50 employees will be forced to provide insurance to full-timers. A 50 person company isn’t all that huge, by comparison, and I think this is going to result in hours getting cut, people getting laid off, and (formerly profitable) companies being forced to close their doors. Is this worth shutting down profitable businesses? I don't think so.

I'm not a fan of this, because I think we need to get the employers OUT of health care in general.

BUt here's the thing. I would NEVER work for a company that didn't offer health coverage, and neither would anyone else who had something worthwhile to write on their resume.